|
Defendant " plication was made to the Subordinate Petitioner. ·Judge would not justify recourse to the v. ·review procedure and that if he was com Nataraja Thevar--Plaintiff--Opposite petent to reconsider his former order it Party. must have been under the general powers Civil Bevn. Petn. No. 171 of 1931, De -conferred by S 151, Civil P C cided on 25th October 1932, from decree of Sub-Judge, Tiruvarur, D/- 22nd De It is upon this broader ground, I think, cember 1930. `that his second order can be justified. (a) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act Whatever power he had to give delivery (1887), Sch. 2. Art. 28--Suit for recovery of the property belonging to the insol of property as heir of deceased daughter vent and the petitioners, I think it is is not cognizable by Small Cause Court. quite clear that an order passed without A suit by a father for recovery of property as heir of his deceased daughter is not cognizable notice to the petitioners was beyond his by a Small Cause Court
|
|
|
India - Tamil Nadu
|
circa 1926
|
|
|
 1
|
